In the case of this game I just purchase it cause I like superheroes. so knew it would at leats provide a few weeks of entertainment value. If you are fairly casual and ok with halting around L30 I would still reocmmend getitng it. but if you are hardcore and would try to hit L40 in 1st week. Well, chances are you already purchase the game anyway heh
For one I CAN believe those that call it a lousy review are the same that point out Gamespy gave warhammer a 5 out of 5 when it wasn't the same reviewer only the same website.. do you really think thats relevant? Where is your brain? There is no overlord that assigns scores to all the games to keep the scores in balance, it doesn't work that way. Reviewers aren't suppose to pussyfoot around their opinion to play it safe, the reviewer didn't like the game as it stands and explained why.
If you read around, MMOs generally get around a "70" at all times, mostly because the reviewer says they can see potential when some things are fixed and don't actually score it off the state it was played in. That is a mistake that will be repeated as long as the gaming websites fear you loud fanatics that refuse to accept the games faults.
Anyway that is the guys opinon which most of us that don't become addicted to the newest MMO share.
*edit* also I noticed the MAJORITY of defenders of CO are the same people that stupidly spent 200 dollars on a game they convinced themselves into liking.. the angry comments are usually due to the inner struggle and denial stages of wasting 200 dollars
For one I CAN believe those that call it a lousy review are the same that point out Gamespy gave warhammer a 5 out of 5 when it wasn't the same reviewer only the same website.. do you really think thats relevant? Where is your brain? There is no overlord that assigns scores to all the games to keep the scores in balance, it doesn't work that way. Reviewers aren't suppose to pussyfoot around their opinion to play it safe, the reviewer didn't like the game as it stands and explained why.
If you read around, MMOs generally get around a "70" at all times, mostly because the reviewer says they can see potential when some things are fixed and don't actually score it off the state it was played in. That is a mistake that will be repeated as long as the gaming websites fear you loud fanatics that refuse to accept the games faults.
Anyway that is the guys opinon which most of us that don't become addicted to the newest MMO share.
*edit* also I noticed the MAJORITY of defenders of CO are the same people that stupidly spent 200 dollars on a game they convinced themselves into liking.. the angry comments are usually due to the inner struggle and denial stages of wasting 200 dollars
You assume a lot in this post. I haven't bashed Gamespy's WAR review, despite it having similiar problems at launch (lack of content, or a lack of any good PvE content, masked by a decent PvP system), or spent even $1 on Champions, yet I still think the review is a steaming load of shit.
I find it really funny how people are using War's review as the basis for their arguement. Think about it WAR started off great and from the time they played it thats what they scored. Trust me if they played to max the score would have been much much different
I find it really funny how people are using War's review as the basis for their arguement. Think about it WAR started off great and from the time they played it thats what they scored. Trust me if they played to max the score would have been much much different
No... War never started out "great". IMO (and MANY others') War was a pile of crap from the get-go. No wonder in a year War had to reduce its number of servers to about 20% of what they were before. Yeah... if that's a "5/5" game, then they're using a reversed grading scale (5 = piss-poor, 1 = excellent).
I find it really funny how people are using War's review as the basis for their arguement. Think about it WAR started off great and from the time they played it thats what they scored. Trust me if they played to max the score would have been much much different
If you read WAR review in gamespy you would notice that they list all of WARs issues but
"While the game seems to have avoided the big technical nightmare of unstable servers, there's a definite danger of population imbalance."
"There's a weird graphic bug that will lock an avatar into one animation cycle (though you can still play the game). "
"he crafting is confusing and feels like an afterthought. The UI, while quite good, could use a few now-common elements like the ability to hot-link items and abilities in chat."
Ok good they listed all the issues with WAR wait what you are not going to mark them down because they can be fixed...
"In the end, though, all of the problems, even the most serious one of lag in heavy player combat, are ultimately fixable."
FYi none of them were fixed and they didn't give CO any benefit of the doubt in that review. Besides it doesn't hurt the fact that EA was buying a huge background splash ad for WAR in gamespy site.
I find it really funny how people are using War's review as the basis for their arguement. Think about it WAR started off great and from the time they played it thats what they scored. Trust me if they played to max the score would have been much much different
If you read WAR review in gamespy you would notice that they list all of WARs issues but
"While the game seems to have avoided the big technical nightmare of unstable servers, there's a definite danger of population imbalance."
"There's a weird graphic bug that will lock an avatar into one animation cycle (though you can still play the game). "
"he crafting is confusing and feels like an afterthought. The UI, while quite good, could use a few now-common elements like the ability to hot-link items and abilities in chat."
Ok good they listed all the issues with WAR wait what you are not going to mark them down because they can be fixed...
"In the end, though, all of the problems, even the most serious one of lag in heavy player combat, are ultimately fixable."
FYi none of them were fixed and they didn't give CO any benefit of the doubt in that review. Besides it doesn't hurt the fact that EA was buying a huge background splash ad for WAR in gamespy site.
Reviews mean crap no matter who does them, I dont like Champions online and I didn't like War. There was no way in hell that War was anything above a 2 at launch. Al in all I say ignore there reviews go to that games boards (not the MMORPG boards for it) and see what people who like the game say about it. I find thats the best way to judge a ame with out actualy playign it and yes its flawed people who like the game will usualy only talk about its ups not its downs but people who hate a game will only talk about its downs not its ups and good luck finding an objective review with somthing as complex as an MMO.
I find it really funny how people are using War's review as the basis for their arguement. Think about it WAR started off great and from the time they played it thats what they scored. Trust me if they played to max the score would have been much much different
If you read WAR review in gamespy you would notice that they list all of WARs issues but
"While the game seems to have avoided the big technical nightmare of unstable servers, there's a definite danger of population imbalance."
"There's a weird graphic bug that will lock an avatar into one animation cycle (though you can still play the game). "
"he crafting is confusing and feels like an afterthought. The UI, while quite good, could use a few now-common elements like the ability to hot-link items and abilities in chat."
Ok good they listed all the issues with WAR wait what you are not going to mark them down because they can be fixed...
"In the end, though, all of the problems, even the most serious one of lag in heavy player combat, are ultimately fixable."
FYi none of them were fixed and they didn't give CO any benefit of the doubt in that review. Besides it doesn't hurt the fact that EA was buying a huge background splash ad for WAR in gamespy site.
I'm gonna go out and say it, war was a much better game at release then CO is. War was stable and had no major issues. All the PQs I did worked and were pretty fun. CO PQs are almost all bugged. War had lots of content and I could go to various zone and gain XP and there was never any lack or quests or content. In fact I could play it multiple times with different content. There were a variety of PvP instances with nice PvP rewards and generally they were a lot of fun. Quests in War were generally pretty good. Combat abilities had some changes but nothing like CO. Generally your abilities might get a somewhat small adjustment.
However War went bad when people found the bext xp at 30+ was grinding PvP instances making the rest of the world fairly empty. Realm imbalances made RvR kinda unbalanced. Etc. As War evolved it had problems and the higher lvl areas had issues. But War was overally a much better game at release then CO.
I find it really funny how people are using War's review as the basis for their arguement. Think about it WAR started off great and from the time they played it thats what they scored. Trust me if they played to max the score would have been much much different
If you read WAR review in gamespy you would notice that they list all of WARs issues but
"While the game seems to have avoided the big technical nightmare of unstable servers, there's a definite danger of population imbalance."
"There's a weird graphic bug that will lock an avatar into one animation cycle (though you can still play the game). "
"he crafting is confusing and feels like an afterthought. The UI, while quite good, could use a few now-common elements like the ability to hot-link items and abilities in chat."
Ok good they listed all the issues with WAR wait what you are not going to mark them down because they can be fixed...
"In the end, though, all of the problems, even the most serious one of lag in heavy player combat, are ultimately fixable."
FYi none of them were fixed and they didn't give CO any benefit of the doubt in that review. Besides it doesn't hurt the fact that EA was buying a huge background splash ad for WAR in gamespy site.
I'm gonna go out and say it, war was a much better game at release then CO is. War was stable and had no major issues. All the PQs I did worked and were pretty fun. CO PQs are almost all bugged. War had lots of content and I could go to various zone and gain XP and there was never any lack or quests or content. In fact I could play it multiple times with different content. There were a variety of PvP instances with nice PvP rewards and generally they were a lot of fun. Quests in War were generally pretty good. Combat abilities had some changes but nothing like CO. Generally your abilities might get a somewhat small adjustment.
However War went bad when people found the bext xp at 30+ was grinding PvP instances making the rest of the world fairly empty. Realm imbalances made RvR kinda unbalanced. Etc. As War evolved it had problems and the higher lvl areas had issues. But War was overally a much better game at release then CO.
I don't agree, Lag was big issue even in CB whenever collision detection came into play. You can easily get stuck in lot of areas and PQs contribution was bugged. They didn't even implement zone chat for like 4 weeks even though we complained about it 4 months prior to release. Not to mention players getting stuck in middile of certain animations. especially the archmage.
Really poor review. For example the reviewer says that
"Champions Online is not (and should not be) balanced for PvP. The fact that the option even exists beyond basic dueling is absurd to me."
But doesn't say WHY that is so absurd (probably because the reviewer doesn't like PvP in MMORPGs). I agree that the PvP in this game is lacking but if he thinks there shouldnt even be any PvP then why does he engage in it and then (and then complain) about it?
Also very little positive is said about the freely mixable powers which makes it stand apart from all the existing, dumbed down, class based games where you have virtually no choice (except the class) for what powers you have.
Furthermore, nothing positive is said about all of the travel powers in the game. More than any other MMORPG, EVER.
Also the fact that he died so much to holds just shows that he is clueless about building your character to resist holds.
And the crafting? Why is nothing mentioned about that?
The review is just a clueless amateruristic one page one that does not even qualify to be called a review.
However I have to give him some credits for bringing up the massive nerfs combined with the extremely expensive respec system which makes the misstakes you make virtually permanent. This is a MUST fix. I refuse to reroll my character just because I figured out one power, I picked a couple of levels ago, is now useless.
If War was 5/5 the first month and CO is 2/5 How bad bad is Champions really? :O
I think a more relevant question is how bad is the review? I have played WAR for 6 months and just started playing CO and altough WAR seemed like a more complete game it is in now way that much better than CO.
Flame troll opinions on these boards pretty much mean nothing TinyBina or haven't you learned that over the what months / years you've been a flame troll here.
ANYONE who is thinking about getting this game needs to take this review to heart because it is dead on.
The fanbois can spew their crap about how this review sucks but the facts cannot be denied. This reviewer hit the nail right on the head about this game. It sucks because I really wanted this to be my new home but man oh man does it have SO MANY PROBLEMS...
uhm, spew their crap? Well I specifically pointed out, with facts, why the review has missed many good points of the game, invalidated some of the "facts" of the review but also agreed on some of them.
So this review, even though it has some facts in it, is not deadon but rather focuses alot on the bad points but mentions almost nothing of the good points. I suggest you to read my response and get back to me why I am "spewing crap".
It sounds more like you did not find the game to be of your liking and thus see all the negatives (and more). The fact is that even though this game has issues (like very expensive respec system, a major game changing patch and little incentive to group) it also has many good points.
An open and flexible skill system for example is what I believe many would find very interesting and refreshing change from all the static class based MMORPGs out there. Also innovative powers like the one that debuffs an enemy so that they get damaged when they deal damage and very extentsive list of travel powers (Aion has one limited flight power where as CO has multiple flight powers, jump powers, acrobatic powers, superspeed, teleport, burrowing and so on).
So the game certainly have issues but it also has alot of good points.
Well i'm not playing past my free month, so that's how deep and fun the game is. For me the killer thing is the game difficulty. Playing CO i dont feel like i'm a super heroe at all, i freaking die all the time, mobs are always in group of 4-5, unless your a cookie cutter template you got no chances to win and from what i heard there is no end game content, this is a huge disapointment.
So shocked at Cryptic, they blew it big time when they did the update on day 1. I might give it a go if they ever make progress on the console version with Microsoft but it seems Microsoft is giving the old /faceplam to everyone except Square Enix when it comes to console mmos.
Since reviews are heavily influenced by a person's preferences, they can swing wildly, and while this person felt it was a 2, others might have given it a 4 and both would be correct. (from their perspective).
As mentioned we tend to exalt those who agree with us, and bash those who don't, which is where all discussions of any review end up at.
Just trying to live long enough to play a new, released MMORPG, playing New Worlds atm
Fools find no pleasure in understanding but delight in airing their own opinions. Pvbs 18:2, NIV
Don't just play games, inhabit virtual worlds™
"This is the most intelligent, well qualified and articulate response to a post I have ever seen on these forums. It's a shame most people here won't have the attention span to read past the second line." - Anon
A bitter review, but some insightful points worthy of note. Compare with this site and its preview.
Cryptic was clever in offering the lifetime sub option, because I cannot see the game holding interest without an expansion in 3 months. There are only so many alts you can pump out and you can level them up easily if you sidekick with a lvl 40. Why? because the experience is mission based. Grinding mobs will get you very little except a Perk (Read: COH Badge). Notice no comments on the microtransactions? I am glad to see that issue has dissolved.
Personally, the game is a good casual mostly solo game. Little need for group except a few group based missions, also little need for support roles too. I initially made a healer build, but the grouping was so scant, my usefulness was not needed. So my survivability was gimped while soloing. Even if you die in group missions, you suffer no debt, respawn relatively close and zerg back into the fray. Made a dps toon and things became much more "heroic". Spaming AOE and buzzing around was nice.
Instances on my vista computer were very laggy. Sometimes slideshow quality. My XP handled things better, but still a big concern for me.
Unless Blood Moon changes things drastically, I see costume contests , resource seller spams, powerlevel spam, etc. in a few months.
Anyway, there is nothing else out there for me, so I will dabble in my caped crusader for now.
i thought the review was spot on. coh was so much better, makes me wonder if ncsoft had something to do with making coh as solid as it was. and without their help, cryptic just makes a patchwork mess of a sequel.
I bought CO as an impulse buy while i was at the game store. I had read a bit on the game during development but did not follow it closely or participate in beta. I saw it, knew what it was and decided to give it a shot since I was not playing any MMO at the time of purchase.
I have played it casually since a day or 2 after release, my highest toon is level 18 and have a few alts around that level as well.
For me it has been a great time killer since release, very casual play friendly, and overall not a bad game to goof around on a few days a week. If your a comic fan or superhero themed game fan then its not bad at all.
If your looking for the hardcore PvE or PvP experience then look elsewhere IMO. If your looking to kill a few hours a week with a fairly easy and fun game then give it a go. I personally dont see myself playing it for any great length of time, a few months maybe, but for $50 bucks thats still not a bad deal IMO. Considering some games run you $50+ and only last 8-10 hours in single player.
Dont see why people get bent out of shape over games. If you enjoy it then play it, if not then dont. If you can afford $50 bucks to try something then buy it knowing you may/may not like it. If you cant afford spend $50 on a gamble then wait and see how it turns out imo.
As far as the review goes just take it for what its worth, one persons opinion.
Comments
I always go by metacritic when purchasing a game usually. Think Champions online is around 74 metascore
In the case of this game I just purchase it cause I like superheroes. so knew it would at leats provide a few weeks of entertainment value. If you are fairly casual and ok with halting around L30 I would still reocmmend getitng it. but if you are hardcore and would try to hit L40 in 1st week. Well, chances are you already purchase the game anyway heh
For one I CAN believe those that call it a lousy review are the same that point out Gamespy gave warhammer a 5 out of 5 when it wasn't the same reviewer only the same website.. do you really think thats relevant? Where is your brain? There is no overlord that assigns scores to all the games to keep the scores in balance, it doesn't work that way. Reviewers aren't suppose to pussyfoot around their opinion to play it safe, the reviewer didn't like the game as it stands and explained why.
If you read around, MMOs generally get around a "70" at all times, mostly because the reviewer says they can see potential when some things are fixed and don't actually score it off the state it was played in. That is a mistake that will be repeated as long as the gaming websites fear you loud fanatics that refuse to accept the games faults.
Anyway that is the guys opinon which most of us that don't become addicted to the newest MMO share.
*edit* also I noticed the MAJORITY of defenders of CO are the same people that stupidly spent 200 dollars on a game they convinced themselves into liking.. the angry comments are usually due to the inner struggle and denial stages of wasting 200 dollars
You assume a lot in this post. I haven't bashed Gamespy's WAR review, despite it having similiar problems at launch (lack of content, or a lack of any good PvE content, masked by a decent PvP system), or spent even $1 on Champions, yet I still think the review is a steaming load of shit.
.. But in a good way.
You use metacritic numbers to form your opinion. That is all that needs to be said.
I find it really funny how people are using War's review as the basis for their arguement. Think about it WAR started off great and from the time they played it thats what they scored. Trust me if they played to max the score would have been much much different
If War was 5/5 the first month and CO is 2/5
How bad bad is Champions really? :O
If WoW = The Beatles
and WAR = Led Zeppelin
Then LotrO = Pink Floyd
No... War never started out "great". IMO (and MANY others') War was a pile of crap from the get-go. No wonder in a year War had to reduce its number of servers to about 20% of what they were before. Yeah... if that's a "5/5" game, then they're using a reversed grading scale (5 = piss-poor, 1 = excellent).
If you read WAR review in gamespy you would notice that they list all of WARs issues but
pc.gamespy.com/pc/warhammer-online/914059p3.html
"While the game seems to have avoided the big technical nightmare of unstable servers, there's a definite danger of population imbalance."
"There's a weird graphic bug that will lock an avatar into one animation cycle (though you can still play the game). "
"he crafting is confusing and feels like an afterthought. The UI, while quite good, could use a few now-common elements like the ability to hot-link items and abilities in chat."
Ok good they listed all the issues with WAR wait what you are not going to mark them down because they can be fixed...
"In the end, though, all of the problems, even the most serious one of lag in heavy player combat, are ultimately fixable."
FYi none of them were fixed and they didn't give CO any benefit of the doubt in that review. Besides it doesn't hurt the fact that EA was buying a huge background splash ad for WAR in gamespy site.
If you read WAR review in gamespy you would notice that they list all of WARs issues but
pc.gamespy.com/pc/warhammer-online/914059p3.html
"While the game seems to have avoided the big technical nightmare of unstable servers, there's a definite danger of population imbalance."
"There's a weird graphic bug that will lock an avatar into one animation cycle (though you can still play the game). "
"he crafting is confusing and feels like an afterthought. The UI, while quite good, could use a few now-common elements like the ability to hot-link items and abilities in chat."
Ok good they listed all the issues with WAR wait what you are not going to mark them down because they can be fixed...
"In the end, though, all of the problems, even the most serious one of lag in heavy player combat, are ultimately fixable."
FYi none of them were fixed and they didn't give CO any benefit of the doubt in that review. Besides it doesn't hurt the fact that EA was buying a huge background splash ad for WAR in gamespy site.
Reviews mean crap no matter who does them, I dont like Champions online and I didn't like War. There was no way in hell that War was anything above a 2 at launch. Al in all I say ignore there reviews go to that games boards (not the MMORPG boards for it) and see what people who like the game say about it. I find thats the best way to judge a ame with out actualy playign it and yes its flawed people who like the game will usualy only talk about its ups not its downs but people who hate a game will only talk about its downs not its ups and good luck finding an objective review with somthing as complex as an MMO.
If you read WAR review in gamespy you would notice that they list all of WARs issues but
pc.gamespy.com/pc/warhammer-online/914059p3.html
"While the game seems to have avoided the big technical nightmare of unstable servers, there's a definite danger of population imbalance."
"There's a weird graphic bug that will lock an avatar into one animation cycle (though you can still play the game). "
"he crafting is confusing and feels like an afterthought. The UI, while quite good, could use a few now-common elements like the ability to hot-link items and abilities in chat."
Ok good they listed all the issues with WAR wait what you are not going to mark them down because they can be fixed...
"In the end, though, all of the problems, even the most serious one of lag in heavy player combat, are ultimately fixable."
FYi none of them were fixed and they didn't give CO any benefit of the doubt in that review. Besides it doesn't hurt the fact that EA was buying a huge background splash ad for WAR in gamespy site.
I'm gonna go out and say it, war was a much better game at release then CO is. War was stable and had no major issues. All the PQs I did worked and were pretty fun. CO PQs are almost all bugged. War had lots of content and I could go to various zone and gain XP and there was never any lack or quests or content. In fact I could play it multiple times with different content. There were a variety of PvP instances with nice PvP rewards and generally they were a lot of fun. Quests in War were generally pretty good. Combat abilities had some changes but nothing like CO. Generally your abilities might get a somewhat small adjustment.
However War went bad when people found the bext xp at 30+ was grinding PvP instances making the rest of the world fairly empty. Realm imbalances made RvR kinda unbalanced. Etc. As War evolved it had problems and the higher lvl areas had issues. But War was overally a much better game at release then CO.
---
Ethion
If you read WAR review in gamespy you would notice that they list all of WARs issues but
pc.gamespy.com/pc/warhammer-online/914059p3.html
"While the game seems to have avoided the big technical nightmare of unstable servers, there's a definite danger of population imbalance."
"There's a weird graphic bug that will lock an avatar into one animation cycle (though you can still play the game). "
"he crafting is confusing and feels like an afterthought. The UI, while quite good, could use a few now-common elements like the ability to hot-link items and abilities in chat."
Ok good they listed all the issues with WAR wait what you are not going to mark them down because they can be fixed...
"In the end, though, all of the problems, even the most serious one of lag in heavy player combat, are ultimately fixable."
FYi none of them were fixed and they didn't give CO any benefit of the doubt in that review. Besides it doesn't hurt the fact that EA was buying a huge background splash ad for WAR in gamespy site.
I'm gonna go out and say it, war was a much better game at release then CO is. War was stable and had no major issues. All the PQs I did worked and were pretty fun. CO PQs are almost all bugged. War had lots of content and I could go to various zone and gain XP and there was never any lack or quests or content. In fact I could play it multiple times with different content. There were a variety of PvP instances with nice PvP rewards and generally they were a lot of fun. Quests in War were generally pretty good. Combat abilities had some changes but nothing like CO. Generally your abilities might get a somewhat small adjustment.
However War went bad when people found the bext xp at 30+ was grinding PvP instances making the rest of the world fairly empty. Realm imbalances made RvR kinda unbalanced. Etc. As War evolved it had problems and the higher lvl areas had issues. But War was overally a much better game at release then CO.
I don't agree, Lag was big issue even in CB whenever collision detection came into play. You can easily get stuck in lot of areas and PQs contribution was bugged. They didn't even implement zone chat for like 4 weeks even though we complained about it 4 months prior to release. Not to mention players getting stuck in middile of certain animations. especially the archmage.
Really poor review. For example the reviewer says that
"Champions Online is not (and should not be) balanced for PvP. The fact that the option even exists beyond basic dueling is absurd to me."
But doesn't say WHY that is so absurd (probably because the reviewer doesn't like PvP in MMORPGs). I agree that the PvP in this game is lacking but if he thinks there shouldnt even be any PvP then why does he engage in it and then (and then complain) about it?
Also very little positive is said about the freely mixable powers which makes it stand apart from all the existing, dumbed down, class based games where you have virtually no choice (except the class) for what powers you have.
Furthermore, nothing positive is said about all of the travel powers in the game. More than any other MMORPG, EVER.
Also the fact that he died so much to holds just shows that he is clueless about building your character to resist holds.
And the crafting? Why is nothing mentioned about that?
The review is just a clueless amateruristic one page one that does not even qualify to be called a review.
However I have to give him some credits for bringing up the massive nerfs combined with the extremely expensive respec system which makes the misstakes you make virtually permanent. This is a MUST fix. I refuse to reroll my character just because I figured out one power, I picked a couple of levels ago, is now useless.
My gaming blog
I think a more relevant question is how bad is the review? I have played WAR for 6 months and just started playing CO and altough WAR seemed like a more complete game it is in now way that much better than CO.
My gaming blog
Flame troll opinions on these boards pretty much mean nothing TinyBina or haven't you learned that over the what months / years you've been a flame troll here.
ANYONE who is thinking about getting this game needs to take this review to heart because it is dead on.
The fanbois can spew their crap about how this review sucks but the facts cannot be denied. This reviewer hit the nail right on the head about this game. It sucks because I really wanted this to be my new home but man oh man does it have SO MANY PROBLEMS...
uhm, spew their crap? Well I specifically pointed out, with facts, why the review has missed many good points of the game, invalidated some of the "facts" of the review but also agreed on some of them.
So this review, even though it has some facts in it, is not deadon but rather focuses alot on the bad points but mentions almost nothing of the good points. I suggest you to read my response and get back to me why I am "spewing crap".
It sounds more like you did not find the game to be of your liking and thus see all the negatives (and more). The fact is that even though this game has issues (like very expensive respec system, a major game changing patch and little incentive to group) it also has many good points.
An open and flexible skill system for example is what I believe many would find very interesting and refreshing change from all the static class based MMORPGs out there. Also innovative powers like the one that debuffs an enemy so that they get damaged when they deal damage and very extentsive list of travel powers (Aion has one limited flight power where as CO has multiple flight powers, jump powers, acrobatic powers, superspeed, teleport, burrowing and so on).
So the game certainly have issues but it also has alot of good points.
My gaming blog
Well i'm not playing past my free month, so that's how deep and fun the game is. For me the killer thing is the game difficulty. Playing CO i dont feel like i'm a super heroe at all, i freaking die all the time, mobs are always in group of 4-5, unless your a cookie cutter template you got no chances to win and from what i heard there is no end game content, this is a huge disapointment.
So shocked at Cryptic, they blew it big time when they did the update on day 1. I might give it a go if they ever make progress on the console version with Microsoft but it seems Microsoft is giving the old /faceplam to everyone except Square Enix when it comes to console mmos.
Since reviews are heavily influenced by a person's preferences, they can swing wildly, and while this person felt it was a 2, others might have given it a 4 and both would be correct. (from their perspective).
As mentioned we tend to exalt those who agree with us, and bash those who don't, which is where all discussions of any review end up at.
"True friends stab you in the front." | Oscar Wilde
"I need to finish" - Christian Wolff: The Accountant
Just trying to live long enough to play a new, released MMORPG, playing New Worlds atm
Fools find no pleasure in understanding but delight in airing their own opinions. Pvbs 18:2, NIV
Don't just play games, inhabit virtual worlds™
"This is the most intelligent, well qualified and articulate response to a post I have ever seen on these forums. It's a shame most people here won't have the attention span to read past the second line." - Anon
A bitter review, but some insightful points worthy of note. Compare with this site and its preview.
Cryptic was clever in offering the lifetime sub option, because I cannot see the game holding interest without an expansion in 3 months. There are only so many alts you can pump out and you can level them up easily if you sidekick with a lvl 40. Why? because the experience is mission based. Grinding mobs will get you very little except a Perk (Read: COH Badge). Notice no comments on the microtransactions? I am glad to see that issue has dissolved.
Personally, the game is a good casual mostly solo game. Little need for group except a few group based missions, also little need for support roles too. I initially made a healer build, but the grouping was so scant, my usefulness was not needed. So my survivability was gimped while soloing. Even if you die in group missions, you suffer no debt, respawn relatively close and zerg back into the fray. Made a dps toon and things became much more "heroic". Spaming AOE and buzzing around was nice.
Instances on my vista computer were very laggy. Sometimes slideshow quality. My XP handled things better, but still a big concern for me.
Unless Blood Moon changes things drastically, I see costume contests , resource seller spams, powerlevel spam, etc. in a few months.
Anyway, there is nothing else out there for me, so I will dabble in my caped crusader for now.
i thought the review was spot on. coh was so much better, makes me wonder if ncsoft had something to do with making coh as solid as it was. and without their help, cryptic just makes a patchwork mess of a sequel.
I bought CO as an impulse buy while i was at the game store. I had read a bit on the game during development but did not follow it closely or participate in beta. I saw it, knew what it was and decided to give it a shot since I was not playing any MMO at the time of purchase.
I have played it casually since a day or 2 after release, my highest toon is level 18 and have a few alts around that level as well.
For me it has been a great time killer since release, very casual play friendly, and overall not a bad game to goof around on a few days a week. If your a comic fan or superhero themed game fan then its not bad at all.
If your looking for the hardcore PvE or PvP experience then look elsewhere IMO. If your looking to kill a few hours a week with a fairly easy and fun game then give it a go. I personally dont see myself playing it for any great length of time, a few months maybe, but for $50 bucks thats still not a bad deal IMO. Considering some games run you $50+ and only last 8-10 hours in single player.
Dont see why people get bent out of shape over games. If you enjoy it then play it, if not then dont. If you can afford $50 bucks to try something then buy it knowing you may/may not like it. If you cant afford spend $50 on a gamble then wait and see how it turns out imo.
As far as the review goes just take it for what its worth, one persons opinion.
Just like this is mine.
Cheers